Who is the better man? asks The Australian. Photograph: firstdogonmoon

What is going on with the masculinisation of political language in Australia? Obviously, the promotion of testosterone as political asset is as old as time, and certainly as old as the day George W Bush called our former PM a “man of steel” on the floor of parliament. But it certainly feels in the past year to have taken on a more, shall we say, pugilistic tone.

This past week, such figurative phalluses have been flying with particular prominence, with Tony Abbott suggesting that you don’t want a wimp running border protection (it is uncertain what that says about defence minister David Johnston), The Australian asking its readers to judge who is the “better man” between General Angus Campbell and Senator Stephen Conroy, and Conroy being accused of not being able to “man up” and apologise to Campbell for accusations of a cover up.

This conflation of “manly” and “competent” is unsurprising, given the scattershot conservatism of our new government and the newspapers that back it. It’s no secret that those of a more conservative bent have long harboured the nostalgic yearning for the days of the stay-at-home mum, the working dad and the Australian-made car in the drive, a myth that both reality and economic policy are making a solid fist of stomping on.

There is an element of conservative thinking that joins these dots. Professor of cognitive linguistics George Lakoff talks about the fundamental underpinnings of what he loosely defines as “conservative” and “progressive” mindsets. The conservative mindset is framed by the “strict father” model of thinking - that children learn through reward and punishment, and that the parent, particularly the father, is meant to mete out these. The idea of male, fatherly competence is central to this system of thought. It goes to the larger sense of the man as the strict, authoritative father figure, the competent provider. It goes to “adults” being “in charge”, being “fiscally responsible” and having “operations” rather than “policies”.

It all seems, even if it can’t be proven, that much of macho bragging is a repudiation of that woman; our former prime minister who was certainly subject to her fair share of gendered insults. Tony Abbott, in opposition, ruthlessly prosecuted this line: labeling her “Lady Macbeth”, suggesting that “when she says no she really means yes”, or posing in front of placards calling her a “bitch”.

Of course, this effort to fuel political debate with raw testosterone was never going to be confined to a time when there was an actual woman to belittle. Kevin Rudd was “negative” and “hysterical”, he was “Kevin Kardashian” – conjuring up not only a woman but a vapid celebrity, the very opposite of a competent man who would steer the nation with a furrowed brow and a firm hand.

The media jumped right on the wagon too. The Courier Mail noted that compared to Abbott’s “morning run, these days Rudd barely finds time for a walk”. While the opposition leader was thwacking on the lycra before sunup, the prime minister had instead fallen into the habit of “comfort eating”. When was the last time you heard that phrase directed at a man?

By contrast, Abbott is a classic example of hegemonic masculinity – he may not be the aspirational model that many men or even women aspire to, but most people recognise his version of masculinity as being the mode that is meant to be in charge. As a result, it’s hard to avoid the idea that the “adults” who were sweeping to power were in some way a gendered response to Gillard as well as Rudd. The presence of a mere one woman on the front bench only serves to reinforce this.

And all of this – because it’s the 21st century, and because tabloids are involved – is being filtered through the Bruckheimerisation of masculinity that has been underway for some time. Manliness is no longer necessarily stoic and stolid, it must also be virile and athletic, preferably with explosions.

Thus, when a naval error occurs near Indonesia, it’s a “missed tackle”, it’s why the process of dealing with desperate refugees becomes Operation Sovereign Borders, which couldn’t possibly be run by a wimp. It’s why the Abbott election pitch was all about “real action”, and the response to climate change is all about “direct action”. It is why, when a young kid gets whacked in front of a nightspot, it’s a “coward punch”, somehow implying that to punch someone square in the face is an ennobling act for all concerned. Perhaps a former boxer who garnered Blues at university genuinely believes that. Certainly our (male dominated) print media got behind the notion.

Is this language working? It’s too soon to say. No doubt it has some resonance with those who share the same mindset, the same sense that things were better “then”. But is it reinforcing a model of conservative government that will change the Australian political landscape? Or is this the last gasp of a dying breed?

A glance at the government’s front bench, as well as the editorial team of the papers that are promulgating this language, would suggest that perhaps it is. A world where “man” equals “good” tends to imply that “woman” is, well, not. Hopefully, the majority of us who are not attached such antiquated notions will decide that this language is no help to anyone.